Friday, March 21, 2008

Uncle has a bit on it and now Josh Sugarmann is rehashing the same old racism and junk research from Bogus.

Sorry Josh. If you're still citing Bellisiles as a source, you can hardly call yourself a "scholar". It's a "hidden" history because it only exists in the minds of you and the other anti's. Notice the lack of support in the responses to Bogus's post.

Notice how the Anti's have gone from proclaiming the SCOTUS rulings to the heavens to now referring to them as "political hacks" and only having a "little knowledge" even before a ruling has been made?

I guess when you're running scared, insults and the race card is all you have left.

That's how many counties in Illinois have passed resolutions supporting the 2A. Three more (McHenry, Mclean, and Jersey) are proposed and I've been informed there's a strong push currently going on in Lake County. Best wishes to the State Line Rifle Association who are spearheading the effort.

It’s Friday and we have all had some good news this week. But back to reality, and the answer to the question,” what does a disarmed society look like”? One needs look little further than your TV remote, local paper, or the internet, a part of the world that gets very little attention under normal conditions. Tibet. No oil, no manufacturing plastic junk and shipping it to the US, Just Mountains, people and a ruthless invader. Yes the country that bought and paid for Bill Clinton, most likely bank rolling Hillary, and many of the “Progressives” I would not be surprised if the Joyce Foundation was not in their pockets as well.China yes the same one sends lead tainted toys to this country.

The Tibetan people are not allowed to have firearms. They can not fight back; China has admitted to killing four, some unofficial sources have the numbers 80 to 360. These people are bravely standing and defending themselves with rocks and sticks against an army with modern weapons. This would be the dream for the left and the anti firearm anti freedom groups.

I would suggest everyone take a long look, this holy weekend. Thank God for where you live. Thank the few who stand to protect this country. And the freedom we enjoy.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Not according to Maryland Governor Parris Glendening. Here's the transcript from 2000 on CNN when they showed the press release of him taking over 2 minutes to open one:The National Rifle Association has lined up its sights on this bill. A television commercial produced by the NRA took advantage of Maryland Governor Parris Glendening's two minutes of fumbling while he tried to demonstrate to reporters the ease of using the locking device.

GOV. PARRIS GLENDENING (D), MARYLAND: Part of my job here is to show, in theory, how easy this is. It should be very simple.

NARRATOR: But if your family's in danger, how much time will you have to unlock the firearm you depend on for protection.

Tell Speaker Taylor that you oppose integrated trigger locks...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Push the back piece to the side again.

NARRATOR: ... because your safety is no laughing matter.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRAZIER: The governor said later he should have been trained in the proper use of the locking device before he took it before a news conference.

LIN: Maryland's full House will vote on the bill next week, and if it passes the governor will, of course, sign it.

And look who else happened to be featured in the same article. Ed Shultz, the Smith & Wesson CEO who sold out the company to the Clintons and John Rosenthal of an anti-gun alliance in Massachusetts has met with Shultz over the years.

There's also a comment from a Glock VP about good ol' (former) Gov. (then AG) Spitzer:

You know, I think it was General Spitzer himself who told me that, you know, we are going to have bankruptcy lawyers knocking at our door if we didn't kowtow to his extortion.

FRAZIER: Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York?

JANNUZZO: Yes, sir.

Then there's our buddy Dennis Henigan who, in 1998, couldn't open one either:

"At a recent antigun conference in Chicago, Mr. Henigan, who is the top lawyer with Handgun Control Inc., the country's largest gun control organization, waved a version of the [Saf T Lock], extolling how easy it is to operate. Then, punching in what he thought was the correct combination, the lawyer failed to unlock the gun, much to the evident discomfort of the sympathetic audience." He excused his failure with the words, "Even if a klutz like me fumbles on the first try, the benefits of having a lock outweigh the risks." (Barrett, "A Simple Invention Points Up Complexity of Gun-Control Suits," Wall Street Journal, 4/23/99, A1).

Apparently even SCOTUS judges know more about firearms than anti-gun advocates.

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is,outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns isintolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I hadsuggested in any way -- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudgingthe answer -- that machine guns are the next case and this is the path todumping 922(o) -- I'd have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia.There wasn't any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed inunmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices andheard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion,but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off,some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted meto declare an absolute right, like I'm there to waive some sort of GOAbumper sticker. That's a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron inthe process.

I didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am notresponsible for the way that people out there -- and on the court-- feelabout machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very....interesting.... ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts.I don't need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it's not the realityin which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, thecollective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states.Hopefully, on next year's MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in theindividual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others outthere can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if wecan't get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants. Honestly some people just want tostay angry. I'm glad you're not among them.

You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climatechange."

"As I watched the presentations to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was constantly aware how critically, and immediately, the Justices' decision will impact gun laws that protect you and your family today, and in the future . . .

. . . from the Brady background check law and the federal machine gun ban to strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and many others.

March 19, 2008LOS ANGELES — If the Supreme Court strikes down the ability of municipalities like the District of Columbia to regulate guns, Chicago and other cities with handgun bans would see a return of gun stores and an upswing in crime, Mayor Richard Daley said Tuesday.

"That would open a Pandora's box," he said following a news conference with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to promote federal legislation requiring microstamped identifiers on cartridges fired from semiautomatic handguns.

Of course he ignores the fact that Chicago has seen an upswing in crime even w/ less gun stores. Not like it really matters what SCOTUS says. Daley has a history of ignoring federal laws and requirements when they don't fit his personal agenda.

I was at the Supreme Court today, and based on what I heard, I have every expectation that the Court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.

Everything I saw in court shows the District's ban on functional firearms is out of sync with American history. The arguments today clearly indicated the Second Amendment is an individual, and not a collective, right. The District's attorneys spent their time swimming upstream against the U.S. Constitution.

In Washington, D.C., the law is simple. Once a gun becomes usable, it becomes illegal. That means when your window breaks at 2 a.m. and you're facing an armed criminal heading towards your bedroom, the politicians in D.C. want you to just call 911 and pray help arrives before it's too late. That's why the District's law isn't just unconstitutional, it's unreasonable. The D.C. Gun Ban has been on the books for decades and hasn't increased public safety. In fact, the crime rate has skyrocketed. When you couple the gun ban with the District's revolving-door criminal justice system, it's open season on honest people.

The District seeks the supremacy of the government. The NRA believes that individual freedom is of the utmost importance in our country. The idea that the government can protect you from all harm is a fantasy. Even the beat cops, the law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day, will tell you that.

This case is ultimately about the good people in society, and what rights they have to protect themselves against those who ignore our laws. It's about whether the good people will have their God-given right of self defense returned to them. And after what we've seen today, I'm confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District.

From the Brady Campaign:

Today, the Justices of the Supreme Court thoroughly discussed the Second Amendment of the Constitution for the first time in nearly 70 years, in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. Their probing questions, and the lawyers' responses, highlighted the complex history and competing approaches to gun regulation in our country. I am hopeful that their ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

"One of the reasons we have weak or nearly non-existent gun laws today is because a lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions. Today's arguments, however, demonstrated broad support from all sides for responsible regulations concerning guns.

"Think how much safer we all would be if we made it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons nationwide, not just in a few areas."

Prowling the news this morning, even going on to the Brady Bunch site and VPC web sites guess what nothing. No chest pounding we won some minor victory, no twisting the facts and offering the brain washed some semi sweet tid bits. No just silence.

To the pro freedom folks this is a good thing. I’m hoping June will bring even better news for the pro freedom side.

But one thought still occurs to me, this should never have been needed. The Bill of Rights is clear. I think our side should send a bill for legal expense to D.C. and the rest of the freedom hating groups, and maybe a bill to “Cryan” Bryan Miller directly. Just a nice thought.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“We are confident,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “that the high court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens.

“We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact,” he continued. “Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement, however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Mr. Gura’s remarks left the justices with a clear understanding why the District’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.”

Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old handgun ban, “won the oral argument.”

“While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law and regulation on the books,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny.

“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”

NO NOT ME you idiots. 130.ok .add 5 to 8 lbs. We can only hope she sings a tune that speaks of freedom.

In my travels I found some good news

Reuters: The highest U.S. court generally seemed supportive of the argument by opponents of the law that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does contain at least some form of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The court's four liberals seemed most sympathetic to the law during the arguments.SCOTUSblog: The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government cut put on access or use of a weapon.

Associated Press:A majority appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns, rather than somehow linking right to service in a state militia. But it is less clear what that means for the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

The Blog of Legal Times: Based on extended oral arguments this morning in the case D.C. v.. Heller, a substantial majority of the Supreme Court appears poised to declare that the Second Amendment protects some kind of individual right to bear arms. But how tethered that right is to the functioning of state militias is less clear at the end of vigorous debate and active questioning from all the justices -- except, as usual, Clarence Thomas who asked no questions. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and possibly Stephen Breyer and David Souter appeared to question the individual rights view. At least some parts of D.C.'s gun control ordinance seemed in jeopardy. Justice Anthony Kennedy, always under the spotlight as a potential swing vote, seemed strongly convinced that the Second Amendment declares an individual right to bear arms "in addition to" the "very important" protection it contains for state militias.

USA TODAY: Several key justices, including Anthony Kennedy, suggested by their questions today that they believed the Second Amendment was rooted in a concern for Americans' ability to protect themselves. Kennedy referred to the "concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."

If a Supreme Court majority does broadly rule for an individual right to guns, the decision would dramatically reverse a trend in recent decades in lower courts that the Constitution protects gun rights associated with state militia. Such a decision would also spur new rounds of litigation over whether various gun regulations are constitutional.

I am sure that somewhere in the Chicago area, and in Paulie’s house there are long faces right now.

I just hope the final verdict is a good one. But that will simply be a small reprieve trust me the evil powers at the Brady cave, and the VPC Sewer are conjuring up a new move. We need to stay on our toes.

Are you all ready? Today is March 18 a day that could decide if we are still a free nation with a working constitution, or have we digressed in to a nanny state, of socialism, where a minority decides what rights we should or should not have.

I have never felt that gun control is about safety, or saving lives. It is simply about control. I look at our representatives that push gun control, and a funny similarity emerges. They are all “Limousine liberals” Example: Barbara Boxer, Millionaire, funneling contracts to her husbands company, and a concealed carry license holder. Yet wants all out handgun bans to you and I.

This is all too familiar, and common a profile. I have asked the question, what has happened to our country? I have seen a quantum shift since the 1960’s in personal liberty’s and the scary part, the ones that are advocating the nanny state are the same ones protesting during the 60’s for freedom.

I recall my Grandfather, saying that LBJ’s war on poverty was actually a war on the middle class. I did not understand it at the time but oh do I understand now. I have seen a marked increase in crime, and I would directly attribute it to the lack of personal responsibility. We were all told when we were kids “Nothing comes for free”. “Work builds Pride” And you thought it was just noise when you were young. But how true those words are.

Gun Owners Monies in the fund shall be used exclusively topay the cost of sending notices of expiration of FOID cards.Excess monies in the fund shall be used to ensure promptand efficient processing of applications.

Now here's the law on that:

(430 ILCS 65/5) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑5)(Text of Section before amendment by P.A. 95‑581)Sec. 5. The Department of State Police shall either approve or deny all applications within 30 days from the date they are received, and every applicant found qualified pursuant to Section 8 of this Act by the Department shall be entitled to a Firearm Owner's Identification Card upon the payment of a $5 fee. $3 of each fee derived from the issuance of Firearm Owner's Identification Cards, or renewals thereof, shall be deposited in the Wildlife and Fish Fund in the State Treasury; $1 of such fee shall be deposited in the State Police Services Fund and $1 of such fee shall be deposited in the Firearm Owner's Notification Fund. Monies in the Firearm Owner's Notification Fund shall be used exclusively to pay for the cost of sending notices of expiration of Firearm Owner's Identification Cards under Section 13.2 of this Act. Excess monies in the Firearm Owner's Notification Fund shall be used to ensure the prompt and efficient processing of applications received under Section 4 of this Act.(Source: P.A. 94‑353, eff. 7‑29‑05.)

(430 ILCS 65/13.2) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑13.2)Sec. 13.2. The Department of State Police shall, 60 days prior to the expiration of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, forward by first class mail to each person whose card is to expire a notification of the expiration of the card and an application which may be used to apply for renewal of the card. It is the obligation of the holder of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card to notify the Department of State Police of any address change since the issuance of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card.(Source: P.A. 91‑690, eff. 4‑13‑00.)